|
It would probably have saved life to drop it just at a place were the japanese saw the effect whiout killing thousands of people... Then give them time to decide to stop the War and if they don't, then drop ONE bomb on a place were it really hurts.
BUT WW2 was a diffrent time... Many other citys got bombed and basically eradicated by the germans, the brits, none of the involved countrys really playd the *be nice to the people* card until the war was decided. The Atombomb was just "the end".
The US seems akward to people from europe in many aspects.
What do you think we see from you over here?
Your ellections look like facism is on the rise again. If i would see such huge crowds cheer for one man in germany i would have some bad deja vues.
Your *Rednecks* get much attention, from a european point of view than the truly average citizen. And those really look like something that just can't be possible in a developed country and for sure not in a country that calls himself the best country in the world.
Oh yeah, please stop with this "best country in the world" bullshit. There is no evidence for this and i would call it the result of really succesfull populism. Your whole patriotism thing which is WAY bigger than anything i have ever seen in europe, it really looks scary to me.
You don't see everydays life in the news, in movies and other media. You see whats strange/akward/stupid... And there is a lot of stupid to slaughter by the media in the USA  .
Your political system... You chose between Right and "a bit more Right"... In europe both your partys would be pretty far on the right side of each cabinet, probably even at the edge right to the facists. If your grown up with social democrats, even communists and see that they are not the pure evil as the standart US-Redneck seems to believe this is unbelievable and yes it seems retarded.
Your also way more religious and many of your *churches* are in a way religious that is not even existing in europe... We got basically no *healers*, *laying on hands*, wonders and bullshit like this and we don't get to see the moderate christs because we got them here too, so why should the media bother showing them to us?
Scientology is considered a sect here... Discussing about creationism in politics does basically not happen because it's not worth it, the general agreement is that it's pure bullshit. Our political candidate would NEVER have a discussion in a Church... WHY SHOULD THEY? This is about real world not made up bs.
I have many friends that were in the US and many things are really "alien" to us. On the first look the US seems to be about the same as the western european countrys... On the seconds we see diffrences that we don't expect and we just can't understand. Thats why the USA got it's bad reputation.
A little more sensibilty on the US-People's part would probably help to not let flame up such discussions...
And if you want to play the "who's country is better game", i bet i win.
|
Velr: From what I understand of the time period I believe the American leadership had very good reason to doubt that showing the strength of nukes by demonstration would have effected surrender from the Japanese government. Up until that point they had shown suicide as a preferable option to surrender, and especially with the govt. in such a public place I think it is very unreasonable to believe that course of action would be useful.
The problem with dropping "ONE bomb where it really hurts" if they don't surrender is:
A) They didn't have many bombs or the means to produce them quickly. Luckily the Japanese didn't know this, but you may require more bombs if you took your route.
B) The Japanese could flood any good target with POWs in anticipation of nukes. The surprise tactic chosen nullified this opportunity.
C) Less shock value. If you give them time to acclimatize to it the Japanese govt. might be able to properly fit nukes into its suicidal outlook. Shocking them with a massive, one day death toll doesn't give them an opportunity to put the nukes into their suicidal viewpoint and become mentally prepared for them. Keep in mind the Japanese had been getting bombed relentlessly from conventional weapons (the death toll from which was much higher than the nuke death toll) and had not yet responded at all to surrender calls.
|
not one intelligent american would justify dropping a-bombs on Japan. It might not seem this way from reading this topic, just that every retard wants to post his opinion on the matter while educated people wouldn't want to waste time on something as obvious as this. This way u get insane amount of undeveloped and undereducated americans posting their moronic views on the matter and little amount of americans who even cares to state that nothing justifies what was done in Japan. Add in the antagonistic nature of a typical loser and you get what you currently see in here.
|
@cz
I will never kill a person unless he tries to kill me. For that I can still be a pacifist. I will never force violence on another person or thinks that others should do it. It is just plain mad.
Violence doesn't solve anything, but that doesn't mean I am a willing victim, on the contrary.
There is no justification for throwing the nuke. None. The arguments used like, to save another human life is simply mad. You can't save human lifes by killing others. The other argument was, to end the war quicker... the war was already over.
The only real justification I can think off, was to show off that the United States had the alltime superdeluxe winning bomb.
|
On December 11 2008 07:06 food wrote:
not one intelligent american would justify dropping a-bombs on Japan. It might not seem this way from reading this topic, just that every retard wants to post his opinion on the matter while educated people wouldn't want to waste time on something as obvious as this. This way u get insane amount of undeveloped and undereducated americans posting their moronic views on the matter and little amount of americans who even cares to state that nothing justifies what was done in Japan. Add in the antagonistic nature of a typical loser and you get what you currently see in here.
I'm not American but I say that the nuking was justified. I say so because it was thought to (and vlikely did) save 1) lives in general and 2) American lives through shocking Japan into surrender.
If you'd like to discuss this I'm willing.
|
On December 11 2008 07:08 PliX wrote:
@cz
I will never kill a person unless he tries to kill me. For that I can still be a pacifist. I will never force violence on another person or thinks that others should do it. It is just plain mad.
Violence doesn't solve anything, but that doesn't mean I am a willing victim, on the contrary.
There is no justification for throwing the nuke. None. The arguments used like, to save another human life is simply mad. You can't save human lifes by killing others. The other argument was, to end the war quicker... the war was already over.
The only real justification I can think off, was to show off that the United States had the alltime superdeluxe winning bomb.
How do you decide what constitutes a person, though? What if a country attacks you, and acts cruelly (ie to prisoners)? Doesn't that country constitute an entity that should be brought to justice?
What is the problem with the justification of the nukes with respect to saving lives or American lives? You are saying it is "mad", but not elaborating. Why is that reasoning mad? Why can't you save human lives by killing others? What is the alternative, in this specific situation, in August 1945?
The war was not over. Japan, its leaders and its people were still engaging in war. They may have been heavily reduced in capabilities but it was not over.
|
First of all, people don't go to wars. Governments do, because somehow they think going to war is good? Ok this is another type of argument.
If the United States really really wanted to save american lives. They would pull out of the war and would have never gotten into it. The few thousands people who were getting killed in Pearl Harbor is way less after they finished the war.
Well my history books, stated that the Japanese government telegraphed to the united states (before the A-bombs were dropped) that they surrendered unconditionally.
Book:
Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman, and the Surrender of Japan
|
why not use nukes period? shock enemy into surrender etc. Why not nuke Iraq/Afghanistan? What are you arguing for? its not me being a "pacifist" or whatever else, its common sense. If person lacks common sense, there has to be a problem somewhere. Are u incapable? I apologize then, props for being a rebel.
|
Just a random observation;
I think it is really interesting to see how people speak about the past.
I am from Germany and we are so sentized through school/public discourse about WWII and the Nazi regime, that whenever there is a discussion, we try to distinguish ourselves from the past by speaking of "the Nazis" or "the Germans"; never as "we". It's as if we were talking about a different country and not the one we were born in.
On the other hand most Americans who posted in this thread speak of how "we were attacked" or "what we did was justified". So there's a very strong identification with the Americans of the 1940s.
For those of you who don't understand (or don't want to understand); this is not meant as an insult or anything in that respect. It's just an observation of how different people can relate to the past.
|
On December 11 2008 07:19 PliX wrote:
First of all, people don't go to wars. Governments do, because somehow they think going to war is good? Ok this is another type of argument.
If the United States really really wanted to save american lives. They would pull out of the war and would have never gotten into it. The few thousands people who were getting killed in Pearl Harbor is way less after they finished the war.
Well my history books, stated that the Japanese government telegraphed to the united states (before the A-bombs were dropped) that they surrendered unconditionally.
Book:
Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman, and the Surrender of Japan
Yes governments go into wars, but you have to deal with the realities of the situation. The government controls and/or is the country, and that's what you have to deal with. If the people work in the factories building tanks and the military does the killing, you don't absolve them as neutrals because they aren't the government.
Are you seriously suggesting "pulling out of the war" after Pearl Harbor? This after you just said that it is justified to fight to protect yourself?
Isn't it reasonable to assume that showing that you won't fight is much more dangerous to the world than fighting? Aren't you just opening yourself up to every bad person who wants something?
|
On December 11 2008 07:20 food wrote:
why not use nukes period? shock enemy into surrender etc. Why not nuke Iraq/Afghanistan? What are you arguing for? its not me being a "pacifist" or whatever else, its common sense. If person lacks common sense, there has to be a problem somewhere. Are u incapable? I apologize then, props for being a rebel.
Afghanistan/Iraq are completely different wars. They are limited wars with allied governments, where they enemy is insurgents nestled into a population divided in who is correct. Japan was a centralized, mostly united state with a belligerent, enemy government.
You are the one who came here spewing out how everyone who disagrees with you is incapable of arguing, thinking, or common sense, but so far nearly all you have offered is exactly what you claim to oppose.
|
On December 11 2008 07:23 poilord wrote:
Just a random observation;
I think it is really interesting to see how people speak about the past.
I am from Germany and we are so sentized through school/public discourse about WWII and the Nazi regime, that whenever there is a discussion, we try to distinguish ourselves from the past by speaking of "the Nazis" or "the Germans"; never as "we". It's as if we were talking about a different country and not the one we were born in.
On the other hand most Americans who posted in this thread speak of how "we were attacked" or "what we did was justified". So there's a very strong identification with the Americans of the 1940s.
For those of you who don't understand (or don't want to understand); this is not meant as an insult or anything in that respect. It's just an observation of how different people can relate to the past.
Yes, this is part of the reason that the Japanese currently cannot accept many of the realities of WW2: they are stuck believing that they are or are responsible for their ancestors.
|
It is not different. If it is different it is irrelevant. Do not argue with something that is beyond your comprehension. No one likes americans in Iraq/Afghanistan, no one ever did. If you believe that, you fail beyond my expectations. Seems like you did not deserve to be called incapable just yet. You are Retarded. Just shut your mouth. Case closed.
|
I'm still waiting for an alternate American plan outside of what was done.
So far I've had "bomb an empty place in Japan, then bomb cities if they don't surrender" which doesn't make sense because it suggests that bombing cities IS JUSTIFIED (as its the final course of action), contradicting its premise AND it has a whole bunch of problems associated it (which I listed), which make it less likely to succeed than what was historically done.
Secondly it's been suggested that America simply "back out of the War" right after Pearl Harbor, which both sets a terrible precedent AND rewards violence/killing, obviously a terrible long-term decision.
|
This after you just said that it is justified to fight to protect yourself?
There isn't much protecting left after Pearl Harbor isn't it? (at least not Pearl Harbor). I agree, some retaliation is fine (just like it is okay to make sure your attacker doesn't get up after you've beat him down.) But with dropping the abombs, it is kicking when a person is down. And most of the time you become from the defender the attacker and when something like this happens, you better pull out.
/offtopic
Roosevelt got enough warnings from Churchill that Pearl Harbor was going to be attacked by the Japanese, so why didn't he took any precautions?? He could have done it easily. Another alternative is a simple economic embargo.
Did you know Japan is officially still occupied by the US?
|
On December 11 2008 07:38 food wrote:
It is not different. If it is different it is irrelevant. Do not argue with something that is beyond your comprehension. No one likes americans in Iraq/Afghanistan, no one ever did. If you believe that, you fail beyond my expectations. Seems like you did not deserve to be called incapable just yet. You are Retarded. Just shut your mouth. Case closed.
...And you just lost all credibility. I won't bother responding to you as you are only spewing ad hominems. If you want to make a rational argument I am prepared to respond to it.
|
United States44242 Posts
At what price victory? When Argentina attacked Britain in the Falklands war Britain had the capacity to immediately respond with a full missile strike against Argentine cities without any threat of a counterattack. It would end the war immediately without British lives being lost. However the judgement was made that a more proportionate and low level response would be more appropriate and instead an expeditionary force was created to force them out. But exactly what is a proportionate response in a total world war? What is the level response and the price you will pay for victory?
I think it is very easy to argue for pacifism in the modern context of one sided wars in a world with a sole superpower. When superpowers collide the proportionate response is greater.
|
On December 11 2008 07:40 PliX wrote:There isn't much protecting left after Pearl Harbor isn't it? (at least not Pearl Harbor). I agree, some retaliation is fine (just like it is okay to make sure your attacker doesn't get up after you've beat him down.) But with dropping the abombs, it is kicking when a person is down. And most of the time you become from the defender the attacker and when something like this happens, you better pull out. /offtopic Roosevelt got enough warnings from Churchill that Pearl Harbor was going to be attacked by the Japanese, so why didn't he took any precautions?? He could have done it easily. Another alternative is a simple economic embargo. Did you know Japan is officially still occupied by the US?
Japan didn't just bomb Pearl Harbor and sail home. They simultaneously started a wave of invasions in Asia and continued their conquering spree over the next year, until they were halted by Allied military forces. If the United States had simply backed off right after Pearl Harbor after some retaliatory raids in scale to what the Japanese did to Pearl Harbor (which the Americans were not capable of doing at the time, so it's impossible anyway), Japan would have conquered more than they actually did.
As for 1945, the Japanese were still at war. You can't simply go home and expect it to be over, and even if you did you leave the same people in charge as before, ready to continue or start more wars.
As for the "Roosevelt knew about Pearl Harbor", I haven't seen any convincing evidence of this nor does it even make intuitive sense: Pearl Harbor wouldn't necessarily bring the United States into the war against Germany.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
Secondly it's been suggested that America simply "back out of the War" right after Pearl Harbor, which both sets a terrible precedent AND rewards violence/killing, obviously a terrible long-term decision.
nice strawmen marching there. i guess you only have a-move and alt f4 working.
|
On December 11 2008 07:43 Kwark wrote:
At what price victory? When Argentina attacked Britain in the Falklands war Britain had the capacity to immediately respond with a full missile strike against Argentine cities without any threat of a counterattack. It would end the war immediately without British lives being lost. However the judgement was made that a more proportionate and low level response would be more appropriate and instead an expeditionary force was created to force them out. But exactly what is a proportionate response in a total world war? What is the level response and the price you will pay for victory?
I think it is very easy to argue for pacifism in the modern context of one sided wars in a world with a sole superpower. When superpowers collide the proportionate response is greater.
As you note there are lots of differences between the Falklands War and World War II. Argentina's goals, conduct, treatment of prisoners and most of all reasonable assumptions about how they would respond to military strength were completely different.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
